COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[ashtweth]

Rose you have just about set Glen off, i will formally ask you to desist this line of questionable accusations or it will be moderated
Thank you

Ash

[FuzzyTomCat]

Golly Ash. There is no end to this. Just for the benefit of our readers here - this is the thing. I need to go back to some basic principles here using a variation to a well worn analogy.

'No-one historically can jump above 2 meters. That is the acknowledged barrier. But one person then comes to the party and advises that by using a rare combination of poles, diet and exercise - they could easily scale 3 meters. That person demonstrates it to a wide audience of experts. He also encourages others to try this. But the vast majority of athletes who see this refuse to try it out for themselves. They simply do not believe it. However, in the fullness of time, one or two agree to try it out and that first claimant goes to inordinate lengths to provide the information and the tools required to measure the experiment. And lo and behold they scale 2.5 meters. And they did this by using those same tools of 'poles' and diet and exercise.

NOW. What happened was this. Those that breached the barrier then proposed that - because there was some variation in the length of the pole that they used, or because they see some imagined variation to the proposed regimen of diet and exercise - and because they did not quite get to a full 3 meters, then they must have 'stumbled' onto NEW principles of success that is entirely extraneous to the conditions that were first required to SCALE THAT BARRIER. Shouldn't they rather be trying to find the 'right' pole length or the 'right' excersise or the right diet? Are they not simply 'falling short' of the 'target' - that new level - that HAS been claimed?

But remember. Prior to this - absolutely NO-ONE had managed to breach the 2 meter level. Using some combination of the pole and that diet - at least took them past that barrier. Significantly past it. A whole half meter. What concerns me and many readers here is that there is some evident anxiety to PROVE that this 2.5 meter jump was NOT based on the previous 'guide' to breach the 2 meter barrier. Why is there any need to claim independent rights to this effect? Why is it now EXCLUSIVELY their own discovery. And why this pressing and continual need to discredit both the original claim and the claimant? Tell me then. What will happen if, say the 'so called SA team' breach their own barrier by - say 40 000% - or better still. What if the SA team actually 'FLY'? Does that make it a new discovery? Or what if Bart reaches a COP>12 - does that make it his discovery? Or what if Gad gets it to FLY? Does that make it Gad's discovery? Or what if the extra energy is channelled to another supply source? Does that make it a different result?

Now. To that first 'hypothetical replicator'. If they are going to 'prove' that this replication is more in the nature of a discovery - and if such is required, then it would not be in their interests to show that they can reach or even exceed 3 meters. They would need to rename their jump from - let's call it - the Highest Jump - to 'The Next Best Thing jump'. But then they can also claim that they have the full scale film to document that event. Since that was absent in the 'first' claim then their's has the merit of being a DEPENDABLE ACCOUNT.

So. Back to the 'replication' which you here deny. Glen et al unarguably used the EXACT SAME CIRCUIT DESIGN. The switch may have been different but the switch is simply the 'peg' holding up the pole at a required height. It is extraneous to the circuit principles. But for that matter, nor does the resistor need to be exactly duplicated. The applied energy does not have to be 24 volts. You see this? The extent to which he breaches the 2 meter barrier may be dependant on those components. But the principle is this. USE THESE BASIC COMPONENTS and subject to variations - which indeed may be subtle or gross - you SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BREACH THAT 2 METER BARRIER.

And here's the principle. You can generate enough energy away from a supply source and return this to the supply source to replenish that supply. This is NOT confined to a battery supply source. It does not depend on only one circuit configuration. The potential here is HUGE. It is just that this particular BREACH OF THE UNITY BARRIER requires circuitry to be designed to RETURN THAT ENERGY TO RE-ENERGISE THE SUPPLY.

Now. The next point is this. If one actually calculates the power that is generated or, as mainstream have traditionally seen this, 'dissipated' on that circuit - if one measures the height of that jump - one will find that in fact the actual height or the actual power is even greater than is evidenced as heat on the circuit or as height in that jump. BUT these factors are hard to calculate and difficult to harness. So for now. Let's just concentrate on the heat from the circuit and the height of that jump. Both are greater than convention allows.

And when anyone can disprove that as much or even more energy can be returned back to a supply source to recharge it than was initially delivered, then and only then - will the actual CLAIM be refuted. That is the whole of the claim. It's as simple as that. And indeed as complex.

I professionally am to the point I cannot be associated with this thread because of the misrepresentations, allegations, misinformation, misinterpretations, and baiting for arguing.

I will no longer be posting in this thread but will be available in other Energetic Forum threads for the time being, members and guests can PM me or write to [email protected]

Glen

[witsend]

That's overly simplistic however. But it actually goes to the heart of the effect. The difference is that mass in terms of the thesis is ascribed to magnetic dipoles that comprise the whole of measurable mass as well as magnetic fields. Measurable mass is therefore measured in line with E=mc^2 - but that is the only the sum of its actual condition which includes variable velocities and mass. Einstein's equation is the sum of what is evident in these Einsteinian dimensions which, technically, is all that we're concerned with.

While the thesis may be off topic, what is definitely not 'off topic' is to show that there is no actual conflict with the known classical principles of calculating energy. It just confounds mainstream's predictions as it challenges those energy barriers. Assumption has determined that no significant amounts of energy can be returned back to the supply to replenish it. This circuit proves that it can and does. And this circuit is just one of many, many ways that can prove that principle.

[witsend]

Guys, I've had a brilliant suggestion from one of our members. Our local utility supplier is running a competition to find the best energy savings application. Our intention would be to enter our own application for this competition. It'll be interesting to see if it will be allowed - the more so as Eskom FLATLY denied any benefit to this circuitry 8 years ago. WHAT FUN.

[witsend]

Even if Steorn over takes you..we still need to resurrect past suppressed and new technology,

Ash

LOL Ash - I missed this. I trust you mean 'if Steorn takes over 'from' me. It reads as if this technology is already antiquated? But Steorn would first have to ensure that Orbo technology is the cheapest route and that it's NOT licensed. That's definitely a monopolistic route. But I'm sure you'll see to it that they do the necessary here. Then secondly - be warned. If we generate steam and steam can run motors - then this may in fact compete? I certainly hope so. LOL Anything that promotes clean green and cheap has got to be a good thing.

But this is no race. I developed my circuit 8 years ago. (Sorry time marches. It's now about 11 years ago.) I think Bedini preceded me. Then there's tons happening all over this forum alone. Lots. All around the place. And, in any event, I think we were all proceded by Tesla - the Magus. I would LOVE TO BE PIPPED TO THE POST WITH AN APPLICATION FOR FREE ENERGY. When will we see the first application there Ash? Can't wait.

And I'm not sure that any of this technology needs 'resurrection'. It hasn't been killed off yet. It just needs applications. But we're all doing our bit. While its for Open Source it's got to be a good thing.


edited

[witsend]

Guys, I've lost a post. No idea if I deleted it or what? I've not heard from Admin yet - so can't explain it. In any event I need to redo this post. I'm trying to show that the 'effect' - that extra energy - is actually REQUIRED by mainstream science based, as it is, on e=mc^2. Here's the argument.

All energy is traditionally seen as being, or based on, the mass of a material be it particulate or gross. In other words - and at the risk of being fatuously simplistic - take your material be it photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, your average pebble, rocks and the rest. If it's made of matter - and if it's measurable - then it's got energy. And the amount of energy available depends on the amount of that matter or that mass.

Traditionally our electric energy is generated from potential difference. Potential difference is measured as a voltage. This 'difference' is ascribed to various properties but it essentially measures a magnetic imbalance that also relates to the valence condition of an applied energy source. So - very broadly, one can say that electric energy is generated by a 'valence imbalance' that is then conducted through circuit material or any medium that allows a path for current flow. This enables a discharge of that imbalanced valence condition. But it is yet and quite simply - an energy supply source based on the material of that supply. In other words it still conforms to Einstein's famous equation. It is still the sum of the mass of that supply source. Therefore the amount of energy that is discharged cannot exceed the amount of energy or mass available from that supply. That's the basis of the 'elusive' energy barrier. This is still the agument used by Newton and Farraday and Maxwell. Our Giants.

However. If the discharge of that energy from the supply source then generates another imbalance in material that is in the 'path of' that discharge - then it is evident that we get ANOTHER measurable voltage imbalance, a kind of transferred potential difference. Classically this is regarded as STORED ENERGY. And when it too finds a path - it too will discharge that energy. In other words, the amount of material in that 'path' determines the rate at which energy is transferred through that path, or the rate of discharge from the energy supply source. BUT, interrupt that path and - depending on the material used and the amount of imbalance that energy flow generated or 'stored' or 'transferred' then that material itself can generate it's own flow of current depending only on an available path for discharge and on the 'break' or 'chance' or opportunity - afforded by interrupting that first flow from the primary energy supply source.

So. Let's look at the actual condition on this or any switching circuitry. The rate of energy discharged from the supply was determined by the resistance in the path of that primary energy supply source. If it discharged or delivered - for example - 1 Joule of energy in current flow, then classically the circuit can only dissipate 1 Joule of energy or it can store and dissipate some value that is precisely proportionate to that 1 Joule that was first delivered. The primary energy supply source has now 'transferred' it's own potential difference to the material of the resistor - in the process of establishing it's own balanced valence condition or potential difference.

But here's the thing. In point of fact, when one actually interrupts that current flow from the source, and provided one allows a path to discharge that energy - it can be routed back through the supply source to re-energise it. AND it has dissipated energy in the form of 'heat' over that resistor. Not only that - but the amount of energy that is returned to the supply can equal, (And as Aaron and others have shown) even exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered. The question then is this. Have we defied Einstein's equation that determines the limit in the amount of energy that is available in the mass of our supply source. The answer is emphatically NO.

The fact is that the material in the resistor - now comes into the equation. It's mass has been energised. It has adopted the same but opposite valence condition of the supply source. And it has generated heat. Therefore the proposal is that the heat is a measure of the resistance of the material to the applied potential difference from the supply source. And the measured voltage across the resistor is also now a measure of it's own potential difference which precisely matches or depending on the mass of the resistor can even exceed the potential difference at the supply.

The point is this. The mass of the battery or the supply source has been determined by Maxwell as the primary energy supply source. But Einstein's equation incorporates the mass of the resistor as well as the supply source. Therefore the resistive mass is also a potential energy supply souce dependent only on its mass, the inductive and conductive components in that mass and it's ability to 'find' a path to discharge that energy. But it FIRST needs its 'own' moment to become an energy supply source. A switching circuit affords it that moment. Therefore there is no real conflict between this result and the result required in terms of mainstream thinking.

That the thesis attributes current flow to anything at all - is immaterial to this argument. But for the record, the proposal is that current flow itself is the transfer of magnetic fields and not electrons as required by mainstream argument. But in all other respects, this proposal conforms to the quintessentially proven requirement that E=mc^2.

Perhaps those who are testing this circuit can use this argument in support of the proven gains on a switching circuit of this kind. It's certainly the basis of the thesis.

[witsend]

The confusions come from questions of 'locality' or 'time'. Here's the thing. Take your average missile that has been discharged with a force of 'x'. It impacts stationary objects in it's path and the result of that ricochet systematically and steadily reduces the force as it transfers its energy into those objects. In the same way it is assumed that current flow is somehow 'used up' as it transfers it energy into heat or stored energy.

Current flow is different. However one explains this - whatever is assumed to be the constituent parts of current flow - it is widely acknowledged to move at 'light speed'. My own proposal is that it exceeds light speed - but that's nor relevant to this argument. If there is NO variation to the speed at which it is transferred through its path - then at its least one must assume that it is not being 'held up' as a result of that flow through resistive components - that 'ricochet' at impact of a missile. The quantity transferred may be diminished. But the speed of transfer is not effectd. Therefore whatever it is that is being discharged or transferred through space as current flow, cannot be attributed to material objects. Else there would be some evidence of a graduated 'rate' of transfer. Over distance the current flow can weaken and even diminish - depending on the amount of 'flow' from the source and the amount of material through which it discharges. But the rate of flow is always measured to be at light speed. Therefore current flow can only conform to the transfer of immaterial fields that - nonetheless - have a mass component. The thesis attributes its mass to half that of a photon - and twice the speed of light. Therefore it would be measured - in Einsteinian dimensions to have the velocity of light speed. And yet it has the required mass to conform to Einstein's equation.

[b4FreeEnergy]

[witsend]

Hi Guys,

Yesterday was Mother's day and I was rather spoiled. I only had time to write a few emails and answer some others. And I spent my early morning studying some new technologies where I normally use this time for writing. But I think all's good. And thank you to my correspondents for your advice and good wishes. Much appreciated. It all helps to lighten those dark moments - and so nice to be reminded that I'm yet amongst friends. Else it's a lonely world.

And thanks for the update Bart. I happen to know something of your work schedules and fully understand how it is that you don't have time to test. But you must appreciate that the testing from 'replicators' is definitely likely to slow down now. This topic is now over a year old and I'm due to enjoy my first membership birthday - next month. But what's now urgently needed is that application and I'm hoping that when we have that up and running it will do it's own bit to advance the cause. It will certainly have the real advantage of being evaluated by acknowledged experts in the art. In fact there's a weight of accreditation there that - frankly - leaves me humbled. Those 'hallowed halls' of learning! I am learning new respect for the strength behind a trained mind. It seems that all such are indeed open. But they rely on convincing data that needs their own evaluation. Which is fair. Just so nice for us all to get this opportunity to take the test there.

Also as an update. We should get delivery of our cylinder this week. Then it's only required to do the resistor. I believe the students will do the switch for this application and some more advanced students have been assigned this project as their 'practical' task for the year. But they are also constrained by their own study time - so I suspect that the actual testing will be restricted to after hours - which may also then frustrate the time that I normally afford here.

As mentioned Photofx has advised us to take this as a project to a competition on energy efficiency applications. I'm wondering if other such projects could also be advanced - those projects on this forum. But I will need to check whether the competitors need first to be South African. If not, I'll post the details of it. It would be so nice to advance some of the work that is being progressed on this forum. It seems that our own utility supply monopolist is actively advancing alternate energy. They would definitely benefit from membership here. It's very apparent that our poor country is badly in need of some breakthroughs. LOL

edited

[gadh]

osciloscope probes

Hi all. i now realized that my scope probes might not be suitable for measuring the spikes on the load resistor, which can vary between 300-700 volts, so i expect. my probes can only hold up to 400volts (standard probes of fluke PM3392A scope). do you think i must search for high-voltage probes (1KV at least) or i can use these without any possible damage to the scope ? which probes did you use ?

Update on building the load resistor: i managed to manufacture teflon tubes 32mm diameter and the windings on them should be ready in 1-2 days.

[witsend]

Hi all. i now realized that my scope probes might not be suitable for measuring the spikes on the load resistor, which can vary between 300-700 volts, so i expect. my probes can only hold up to 400volts (standard probes of fluke PM3392A scope). do you think i must search for high-voltage probes (1KV at least) or i can use these without any possible damage to the scope ? which probes did you use ?

Update on building the load resistor: i managed to manufacture teflon tubes 32mm diameter and the windings on them should be ready in 1-2 days.

Gad - fortunately caught this on my way out. It's actually better to keep within the stipulated ranges of those probes. Not only could it misrepresent the values - and degrade the calibration accuracy but I understand that it can also damage the probes. Not sure of the scale of voltage you're likely to expect because our own range was only between 200 and 600 volts - but experimental evidence is that the levels can exceed 2000 volts or thereby. Better to get the appropriate if it's possible. Otherwise I would strongly recommend that you work with only one battery and keep the values lower. That's also doable. The values are just as good - only at a lower scale.

Delighted to hear that you've resolved the resistor. We did exactly what you've done and scored our Teflon base to hold the wire. It works very well.

Nice stuff Gad. Can't wait to hear more.

EDIT Just for clarification here. Our teflon base was used in experiments where we inserted the entire resistor directly into water. I've still got access to that resistor and will post a photo of it when I get hold of it. I at least know where it is.

[gadh]

thanks Rosemary.
how can the voltage gets up to 2000volts if the MOSFET can only handle 1000 volts ? in which experiments did you get such high voltage ? in your circuit or others ? since i now intend to buy for now an equipement that will suit only this circuit (Glen's modification of yours).

[witsend]

thanks Rosemary.
how can the voltage gets up to 2000volts if the MOSFET can only handle 1000 volts ? in which experiments did you get such high voltage ? in your circuit or others ? since i now intend to buy for now an equipement that will suit only this circuit (Glen's modification of yours).

It never stays at such extreme levels - as the waveform varies considerably. Just the ocassional measured spike. Check the data available on these threads. And - in any event - the Fet can withstand a certain amount of punishment. But we've blown the odd Fet - I can assure you. But we actually worked at lower voltages - those that you've indicated here. I'm just not sure what results you're likely to get. The subtlest difference in it's inductive values makes an exponential difference in results.

[b4FreeEnergy]

Hi all. i now realized that my scope probes might not be suitable for measuring the spikes on the load resistor, which can vary between 300-700 volts, so i expect. my probes can only hold up to 400volts (standard probes of fluke PM3392A scope). do you think i must search for high-voltage probes (1KV at least) or i can use these without any possible damage to the scope ? which probes did you use ?

Update on building the load resistor: i managed to manufacture teflon tubes 32mm diameter and the windings on them should be ready in 1-2 days.

Gadh,
Maybe put an extra (external) voltage devider in front of your scope probe? Make sure the resistors are big enough to not cause an extra load.
Cheers,
Bart

[gadh]

Bart, I think i'll use your simple suggestion. Rose, what do you think ?